In this section I look at disability sport in its own right. I consider the trends within disability to create a map and context of the work. The relationship between sport and disability in the UK is probably best traced back to the emergence of wheelchair sport at Stoke Mandeville by the famous Dr Ludwig Guttman. According to the International Paralympic Committee (2006a), it was he who opened the spinal injuries centre at Stoke Mandeville Hospital and who introduced sport as a new approach to the remedial treatment and rehabilitation of disabled people.
Hylton and Totten (2001, p.37) suggest that structured campaigns to promote access to sport can be traced to the 1970s:
‘The original ‘Sport for All?’ campaign was a creation of the early 1970s and has long since been succeeded by a multitude of subsequent campaigns and causes. But the ideals of ‘Sport for All?’ still have resonance today as a clarion call for all those involved in sports
development. Despite this apparent consensus, the reality of ‘Sports for All?’ has never been fully achieved, and successes remain incomplete and partial. Gains have been made, but massive inequalities still remain.’
It is from this transient perspective that I see the structure and support network for Disability Sport in the UK.
Thomas (2001, p.11) defines the structure of disability sport in England as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5 Structure of Disability Sport in England (Thomas 2000, p.11)
The structure currently provides support for a limited number of priority sports, which does not include canoesport.
As a result I have had to use a self-help attitude as a designer, to ensure that this research is not overly influenced by the changing priorities of national
programmes, as illustrated by Hylton and Totten’s ‘Policy Life Cycle’(2001, p.60) see Figure 6.
Figure 6 Policy Life Cycle (Hylton and Totten 2001, p.60)
These considerations are important to the research project as they help to frame the potential external resources which create a meaningful legacy for the project.
Thus they further help to define what success is in its broadest sense.
1.5.1. Support for Disabled Athletes in the UK
From April 2006, UK Sport’s ‘no compromise’ programme focussed on preparations for the 2012 Olympics, maximizing the podium potential of individual athletes by only allocating funding to sports with past and future potential for medal winning.
With a focus on achievement, the remainder of sport provision that falls outside the spotlight is not consistent. The key factors that affect provision are the focus of the impairment or disability sport group, and the standing of the sport within the national and international sporting arenas. In addition to this, the health agenda and international sporting agendas play a part in the way in which sports resources, and therefore athletes, are able to gain access to support and
opportunities.
It is clear that there is not sufficient capacity to provide all opportunities to all people all of the time. It is therefore essential for the sports designer to act in a manner which is able to provide the best effect with the resources available, filling in the gaps wherever possible. Panapek (1984, p.346) describes this as:
‘Design if it is to be ecologically responsible and socially responsive, must be revolutionary and radical in the truest sense. It must dedicate itself to nature’s principle of lease effort, in other words maximum diversity for minimum inventory or doing the most with the least. This means consuming less, using things longer, and being frugal about recycling materials.’
I see my role as a designer and researcher in this light.
1.5.2. Expectation to Participate at a High Level in Disabled Sport In this section I outline the nature of opportunities for disabled people in sport in relation to the level of attainment, as outlined in the traditional Sports
Development Continuum model (Bramham et al 2001). In a conversation with Will Behenna at the Aspire Centre, Stanmore, on 22nd October 1997, he
suggested that the way in which disabled people tend to participate in sport is at either end of Bramham et al’s (2001) continuum, i.e. either as learner or as advanced athlete, with little opportunity for being a club participant at an intermediate level.
His suggestion is born out by the experience of running the enquiry service for Equal Adventure, with many enquiries coming from disabled adventurers wanting to move up a level to become an intermediate or independent performer, but lacking the support. It is clear that there is a need for the
development of resources to support the needs of intermediate athletes, to help to balance out the continuum.
1.5.3. Self Image - How do Disabled Athletes See Themselves?
In this section I seek to understand the internal attitudes and relationships of the community that I seek to serve. The aim is to understand the potential bias from the end user regarding any potential design compromise. There is evidence to suggest that different groups of athletes with different impairments have social preferences concerning the way in which they see and value other athletes with different impairments. Mastro et al (1996, p.207) state:
‘Accepting that preference hierarchies exist in disability sport seems a viable first in helping high level administrators better understand the athletes they serve.’
Williams and Taylor (1994, p.416) in their study of the socialisation process, suggest that socialisation is:
‘Socialisation refers to the process by which the individual internalises the knowledge, values and norms that are essential to participation in social life. In the context of wheelchair sports it is the process by which individuals acquire the social characteristics that distinguish them as wheelchair racers, wheelchair basketball players and so on.’
They go on to define culture in the context of disability sport:
‘Culture refers to the beliefs (both described and normative), values, ideologies norms, artefacts, and social behaviours that are shared by the social group.’
The concepts of socialisation and culture are important to the process of design, as they once again help to understand the subtleties of what may or may not constitute success. Additionally, it would appear that elite athletes have a bearing on the experience and approaches of non-elite athletes, as stated by Williams and Taylor (1994, p.421):
‘By far the most important relationship, however especially with respect to the process of socialisation, is that between elite and non-elite racers.
Elite racers pass on the proven sub cultural responses to their non-elite racing peers. Elite racers have the relevant knowledge, and they give that knowledge to those who don’t have it - to non-elite racers. They pass on the sub cultural material that helps beginners to construct their sporting identities as wheelchair racers.’
Williams and Taylor (1994) go on to clarify the type of knowledge transferred, suggesting that the key subjects for knowledge transfer are information,
equipment and training technique.
In conclusion, it would seem that there is a need to understand the relationships between athletes with different impairments and consider the relationships between athletes of different performance levels when considering any potential feedback concerning equipment design and coaching provision.